How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[Clownboat]

But scientists with your type of belief system have trouble describing a universe in which reality actually does exist. We are everything from numbers in an alien program to thoughts in some big brain somewhere and others. To actually being gods making new universes with every decision we make.

So when I say that Theistic Cosmology is the only cosmology that has a solution in which there is only one universe and one reality. I mean the ONLY one.

All you're doing here is replacing "science doesn't know" with "there's this god, see".

Even if your theistic cosmology is the only proposition that says there's only one reality, that doesn't put truth to there being a god involved. It just recognizes the one reality.

When faith is the mechanism for belief, all that is needed is a small bit of hope. For some, "look what science doesn't know yet" is enough to produce the hope for a god concept to then place faith in.

The goal is not to learn it seems as a preferred process/mechanism is never supplied, but to create and maintain some small amount of doubt where hope can grow. All that's left is to then apply faith and you can believe in what you hope to be real. Obviously, this process for holding a belief is not for everyone.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #19]

All you're doing here is replacing "science doesn't know" with "there's this god, see".

Quite the contrary. Science actually says that there has to be something else that exists outside of this universe. I am actually agreeing with science and saying yes there is something else that exists outside of this universe.

Even if your theistic cosmology is the only proposition that says there's only one reality, that doesn't put truth to there being a god involved. It just recognizes the one reality.

We can only see one reality. We only exist in one reality. (at least I hope you all only exist in one reality)

All fingers are pointing to something that exists outside of this universe.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #19]

All you're doing here is replacing "science doesn't know" with "there's this god, see".

Quite the contrary. Science actually says that there has to be something else that exists outside of this universe.

I think you're trying to accuse an hypothesis of being fact.

I am actually agreeing with science and saying yes there is something else that exists outside of this universe.

Of course the theist would agree when science supports their claims. As surely as they disagree with science when it refutes their claims.

We can only see one reality. We only exist in one reality. (at least I hope you all only exist in one reality)

Agreed, but willing to accept provable alternatives.

All fingers are pointing to something that exists outside of this universe.

Not mine.

Where folks - scientist or theist - claim there's something outside the universe, we should expect em to show they speak truth. Where the scientist fails to show he speaks truth, we point our fingers and laugh. We should give the theist the same respect.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #23]

I think you're trying to accuse an hypothesis of being fact.

Well, every cosmological theory points to something outside of our universe. I am not doing anything. The mostly atheist physicist say that there must be something outside of this universe.

All fingers are pointing to something that exists outside of this universe.
Not mine.

That may be your belief but it is not based on any type of physics.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #23]

I think you're trying to accuse an hypothesis of being fact.

Well, every cosmological theory points to something outside of our universe. I am not doing anything. The mostly atheist physicist say that there must be something outside of this universe.

Any claim or proposal referring to what's outside the universe is an hypothesis, not a theory, at least until we can observe (or sense), what's there.

All fingers are pointing to something that exists outside of this universe.

Not mine.

That may be your belief but it is not based on any type of physics.

Are you now claiming to know the physics of what may exist beyond the boundaries of the universe?

Or are you saying the physics of the universe - but not the logic - must apply?

I'll take your not bothering with the rest of my referenced post as indication you can't refute what was presented.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #25]

Any claim or proposal referring to what's outside the universe is an hypothesis, not a theory, at least until we can observe (or sense), what's there.

That did not stop the hypothesis of evolution. Ever sense it was discovered that the universe was expanding we knew that there had to be something outside of our universe.

Are you now claiming to know the physics of what may exist beyond the boundaries of the universe?

No, what I am saying is if you do not believe that anything exists outside of this universe then it is you who are making up unscientific beliefs. Nothing about what you are saying matches modern cosmological theory.

Or are you saying the physics of the universe - but not the logic - must apply?

Logic would be built on the physics of the universe. In this universe, logic is built on the interaction of matter. That does not have to be the case outside of this universe.

I'll take your not bothering with the rest of my referenced post as indication you can't refute what was presented.

Like what?

[Clownboat]

Quite the contrary. Science actually says that there has to be something else that exists outside of this universe. I am actually agreeing with science and saying yes there is something else that exists outside of this universe.

This is the creation of hope I was talking about earlier.
"There must be something outside of this universe." This supplies the hope to then insert not just some god, but a specific god to which faith is then employed to justify the hoped for belief.

We don't look at this universe and see the gods. Humans first had god beliefs, then saw their hoped for beliefs in the gaps of knowledge in our universe and if not in this universe, then outside of it. This is to do it backwards, surely you agree?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #25]

Any claim or proposal referring to what's outside the universe is an hypothesis, not a theory, at least until we can observe (or sense), what's there.

That did not stop the hypothesis of evolution.

Evolution's been observed, so is established fact. Now, as to how such processes play out, that's fair game.

Ever sense it was discovered that the universe was expanding we knew that there had to be something outside of our universe.

If that's accepted, you still haven't shown you know what lies beyond, regarding your claims of a god, and logic not holding.

Are you now claiming to know the physics of what may exist beyond the boundaries of the universe?

No, what I am saying is if you do not believe that anything exists outside of this universe then it is you who are making up unscientific beliefs.

It's neither scientific, nor unscientific to not believe a claimant just cause they have an ability to make claims. In the case of your claims, I don't believe they hold to scientific, or logical muster.

Nothing about what you are saying matches modern cosmological theory.

Regarding what lies beyond the universe, there's hypotheses (speculation), not theories. I can't explain that to you any better.

Or are you saying the physics of the universe - but not the logic - must apply?

Logic would be built on the physics of the universe. In this universe, logic is built on the interaction of matter. That does not have to be the case outside of this universe.

Of course it doesn't have to be the case. I challenge folks who claim to know, either way, to show they speak truth.

I'll take your not bothering with the rest of my referenced post as indication you can't refute what was presented.

Like what?

The parts of my referenced comments you snipped from your previous reply to the rest of em.

[brunumb]

Well, every cosmological theory points to something outside of our universe. I am not doing anything. The mostly atheist physicist say that there must be something outside of this universe.

If science hypothesises that there is something outside our universe, then it would still be something that is part of the natural. Outside our universe does not automatically mean a supernatural realm where we can shoehorn in a god.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #20]

You believe that the only thing that exists is matter and energy and they obey the laws of nature that we experience.

Yes, because I've never seen anything that convinces me otherwise. It seems a reasonable default position to take.

And you believe that man will be able, one day, to describe everything in terms of matter and energy.

Not necessarily. I think that is more likely than finding that god beings exist and have played a role in nature, but humans may never find the answers to some problems before we go extinct eventually.

You can say that you believe that there is only one universe and that everything you see is real. But that is not at all what current cosmology is saying. That would be a belief system based on nothing. It would not be based on mathematics or any cosmological theory. You have no foundation for your belief. Your belief system is more akin to those that believed in Zeus, Bacca's, and Athena than it does to science.

I don't waste time myself thinking about whether there is one universe or many, or whether we know how it began, or any of that. I start 4.6 billion years ago when we know our solar system formed, and go from there. No knowledge is required concerning how the universe actually began, what dark matter and dark energy are, etc. to know that life began somehow on Earth a few billion years ago (mechanism TBD), and it diversified via evolution into what we see today, and Earth and all of its contents are real. Modern understanding of cosmology or origins has no influence on these things.

I am not the one that is making any of these claims. These are men and women that have the same humanistic beliefs that you have. It is not logical to have two sets of laws that govern what we observe. At one point the quantum weirdness does need to be explained because I believe that we only live in one universe.

A lot of the quantum weirdness is explained ... and it doesn't apply to trees falling, or the moon. What is needed are more advances to reconcile General Relativity and quantum mechanics, develop a theory of quantum gravity, and things like that. Physics is nowhere near "done" so that conclusions can be made about everything in cosmology. There are simply things we don't know yet.